The song Mexico starts - "Owsley and Charlie twins of the trade" - now we all know who Owsley Stanley is but who is Charlie ? Later in the song - " You're famous Uncle Charlie, for your Mexican smoke". Well he might be famous to Grace but in the 40 years I've been hearing the song I can't imagine who Charlie can be. Anyone out there know ??

I think Owsley made LSD because he really liked it, not because he wanted to make tons of money. I don't regard him as a gangster, and it doesn't upset me that he's considered a hero. I find Shulgin harder to view heroically because he's responsible for STP, even though he's a purely a chemist. That drug was a disaster by most accounts.

I recall Garcia referencing him as the subject of the Grateful Dead song, Cosmic Charlie.

Owsley's motivation for making LSD was characterized by the evangelism that radiated from the early acid scene. (more on this later; i'm at work)

In an interview somewhere he talks about having recorded a number of airplane concerts but the band was always out of tune and the tapes not usable. (hey the man is an obsessive compulsive perfectionist from all i can gather)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." — George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

Obsessive, perfectionist, whatever the credits of the man were, he was right about the Airplane playing out of tune. Especially Jorma Kaukonen. It makes "Live at the Fillmore East" unlistenable for me. And why do you think Paul Kantner is so upfront and Kaukonen buried deep down in the mix of "The Woodstock Experience"? The answer you will find in other releases (and mixes) of some of the same Woodstock songs.His out of tune playing affected the singers too, only Marty Balin managed to stand his ground.Bill Wyman made the same remark once.Okeedoe, am I too much of a cynic when I think the answer is "Feed Your Head"?Susan, enlighten us!

Great pictures (1968?) of the band by the way. Never saw those before. Grace and Marty look ravishing.

I couldn't hang around for the second talk, because he'd delayed it so much, and I had to give a friend a lift home. But the first one was about drug prohibition, and how it's made things worse for everyone concerned. Here's the first point he made. In mid-century Australia, because the law said pubs had to close by 6pm on Fridays in order to limit the consumption of alcohol, there'd be a rush to drink as quickly as possible after work. As a consequence pubs had tiled interiors so the vomit could be hosed off easily. That lack of thought has extended to anti-drug laws, where sentencing by weight of the substance seized makes only the most potent and dangerous version of a drug profitable to sell. He also claimed that the economic effect of illegal drug trading was the root cause of the global financial crisis. Something to do with the large amounts of money leaving America, I think. (I'd have to consult the handout on this.)

Obviously the guy shall never be appointed as teacher in economics.But, if I understand you well, he made the point that the limitations meant to prevent the use of drugs (alcohol incuded) actually enhanced the abuse of it. Implying of course that legalization would be a great solution to the problems of abuse.Let me, living in a country where drugs are easily available, make a few comments on that.The use of alcohol (legal age 16) is a serious, fast growing problem among young people (I mean really young people between 11-16 years of age). The number of young people who drank themselves into coma (yes, "coma-drinking" is very popular among children) and had to be hospitalized because of that has risen last year by 40% (!), compared to the year before. Lifting the limitations to drug use creates its own new problems.The weed and hash of the country I am living in are famous throughout the world because of their potency (even to the point that some claim these drugs have to be considered as heavy drugs). This increased potency has of course nothing to do with the limitations concerning the amount you are allowed to possess (legally there are, but in practice these are obsolete for decennia). It is the demand of the users (addicts) and the greediness of the dealers that made this evolution possible

Last edited by redrabid on Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:52 am, edited 4 times in total.

Most economic activities have criminal connections, because a certain amount of dishonesty is essential for success in business. Anyway, I don't think drug consumption can easily be limited by legislation. That much is true.

Although I don't think the drug trade caused the current crisis, it does involve huge amounts of money. Black market trading can't be regulated, or even monitored accurately, so it could well contribute to economic instability. That, I now remember, was his main argument.